Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:51:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:51:11 -0400 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.121]:9233 "HELO smtp.uc3m.es") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:24:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 22:28:02 +0000 From: Eduardo =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9rez?= <100018135@alumnos.uc3m.es> To: Marius Gedminas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fork() wait semantics Message-ID: References: <20021015115517.GA2514@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <34f5602687bbb910752d5becee9c9aa1@alumnos.uc3m.es> <20021015180743.GD7511@gintaras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20021015180743.GD7511@gintaras> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1020 Lines: 21 On 2002-10-15 20:07:43 +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:58:44PM +0000, Eduardo P?rez wrote: > > As an example consider bash. In case of fork() error the program > > isn't even run thus causing a fatal error. If fork() waited for > > resources to be available there wouldn't be any problem. > > No, thank you. This happened to me more than once (runaway fetchmail > plugins). An error message about a failing fork() indicates > immediately that I have too many processes, and I can kill them > (thankfully kill is a bash builtin). If bash just waited silently I > wouldn't know what to think. But you are talking about buggy software. If you software has bugs don't expect it to work properly. These fork() semantics are for non-buggy software. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/